Running head: Policy Final

Policy Final Ryan Keesee Georgia Southern University

Policy Final

The higher education system is one of constant change and growth. Among the many societal systems higher education is one of the most impactful systems with endless constituents and populations served. This system is so complex that no one postsecondary institution is alike and internal and external factors influences it drastically. With this, university systems have set out to create guidelines and standards similar to a community system, creating laws that are strictly enforced and constantly developed. The foundational influence of these laws and standards is educational policy. Policy can be defined as, an explicit or implicit single decision or group of decisions which may set out directives for guiding future decisions, initiate or retard action, or guide implementation of previous decisions (Haddad, 1995, p. 18). Policies are abundant in the educational systems. Their span includes academics, student affairs, enrollment management, development, communication and marketing, and much more. Policies are the reason students are required to stay on campus for their first year, three strike systems are in place for alcohol and drug use, and even the guidelines of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), just to name a few of the many examples. The creation of a policy is often times due to the recognition of an existing or emergence of a problem. Two essential dimensions of policy making are: who does it (the actors) and how (the process) (Haddad, 1995). This concept will be explored further later. Through all of this, it must be understood that policy is produced from various actors for various reasons. In order for the policy to be successful; however, it must be created from informed decision with appropriate stakeholders and context in mind. As a result, it is my goal to express the rising importance of assessment and evaluation of policy through the analysis of the factors that make a policy come to fruition. To begin, I want to step away from policy discussion to observe what exactly assessment and evaluation is. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines assessment as: to determine the

Policy Final

importance, size, or value of a problem (Merriam-Webster, 2013). The evaluation as: to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study (Merriam-Webster, 2013). Assessment focuses on specific objectives and their direct result on performance while evaluation is the actual result. From this, one may think that these two processes play a significant role in higher education policy; however the truth is, the attention given to assessment or even evaluation tends to falter due to the loss of time associated with carrying out these processes. As discussed in A New Explanatory Model for Policy Analysis and Evaluation performance in the policy creation framework is often evaluated through performance indicators. Performance indicators can be goal oriented or zeroed in on specific activities; however, the performance indicators can start to have life of their own and the real goal and objective of the program or policy can easily be lost (Schouwstra & Ellman, 2006). Granted this may be true, much literature surrounding policy and its creation includes evaluation in the framework. In The Politics of State Higher Education Governance Reform it is noted that, overall the limited nature of scholarship indicates the need for more systematic assessment of the political dynamics associated with state higher education governance reform(McLendon & Ness, 2003, p.76). Shifting back to policy; as a higher educational professional it is of dire importance to understand the impact theory and its application has for justifying decision making, especially policy creation. Relevant models concerning actors to be noted are the organizational (public interest) model and the personalistic (self-interest) model. Process models include synoptic (comprehensive) and incremental approach (Haddad, 1995). The synoptic approach focuses on an independent authority combining all factors into one integrated planning process. Incremental approach differs from this being that it focuses on interaction and change occuring in short

Policy Final

incremental phases unlike synoptic which is sweeping. In the organizational model, decisions are based on the output of several entities whereas the personalistic is individually influenced. Another model, the government politics model, combines the two by including the role of the individual leaders that assume authority within the organization. These four models together create a quadrant in which rational of policy making can be observed. Rational falls in the first quadrant between the synoptic and organizational models while personal and political influence lies on the opposite end between incremental and personalistic models. Both ends are an extreme form and therefore sound policy exist somewhere in-between balancing analytical rationality within the sphere of political and institutional aspects of policy making (Haddad, 1995). If the objectives of the planned policy are assessed it may facilitate the process of balancing these two models. Furthermore, evaluation of these models can create an understanding of which models should be utilized for specific contexts. Assessment may also be utilized to understand complexity, decision environment, alternatives and decision criteria. By utilizing assessment and evaluation, these models are put to test and can facilitate future policy making decisions. The benefits of utilizing assessment and evaluation techniques can be further accomplished when implemented throughout the policy creation process including the generation of policy options. Various processes for generating options can be categorized in four modes: systemic, incremental, ad hoc and importation. The systemic mode includes the generation of data, formulation and prioritization of options, and refining options. Incremental modes adjust present difficulties without the consideration of future ones generating incremental improvements. Problems existing outside of the educational system are considered ad hoc and finally importation is influence by foreign resources. The following modes are evaluated by their desirability, affordability, and feasibility (Haddad, 1995). Desirability reintroduces the

Policy Final

importance of stakeholders and the overall impact on the environment. Affordability produces the ever important factor of economic impact and feasibility analysis the available resources such as educators and technology. These three components evaluate critical aspects of policy and I believe feasibility has the potential for fidelity assessment. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fidelity as: the degree to which something matches or copies something else (MerriamWebster, 2013). In the evaluation of resources such as teachers and technology it is important to understand how relevant and consistent the policy created is being enforced and communicated. An important aspect to understand of policy is that context and environment plays a critical role in how whether or not a policy is necessary and the degree to which it is enforced. As an example, consider the issue of housing policies for transgendered students. Some universities have gender inclusive housing which allows students to live in a room regardless of their roommates gender status whereas other universities have gender specific housing or floors. Certain policies within the housing system must be established for the non-gender inclusive residential housing system to ensure students abide this rule. These policies have little to no effect for gender-inclusive housing, therefore the environment influences what policies stand or even exist. Another critical aspect of policy, that has appeared frequently, is stakeholders. When designing, implementing and evaluating a policy, it is important to know who has what interest or stake in the implementation and/or outcome of a policy (whether it be organizations or individuals or both) (Haddad, 1995). The Sociological Frameworks for Higher Education Policy Research discusses the rise of policy monopolies which are created by various overlapping, subsystems in politics. These political monopolies create established structures, political roles, and interest group mobilization efforts that lead to incremental change (Bastedo, 2007). This

Policy Final

article also argues the complexity of higher education policy due to the many constituents served including parents, alumni trustees, legislators, state boards, and governors. Those involved internally also have their own demands to be met. Educational Policy-Planning Process: An Applied Framework notes that mobilization of political support is often-times the most difficult and overlooked task in policy implementation. Furthermore plans should be developed so that students and their families are aware of the objectives of a new initiative (Haddad,1995, p. 36). This, I believe, is where assessment and evaluation are critical. Implementing a plan that is based on sound results and review tends to attract more attention. Assessment may also allow for transparency and understanding of faulty processes. Evaluating the emotions and general public interest of possible policy implementation can also prove beneficial. Finally, in making sound policy it is also important to develop some framework to tackle the issue a chosen policy is intended to combat. In A New Explanatory Model for Policy Analysis and Evaluation the importance of analysis is explored and the Geelhoed-Schouwstra framework is introduced with additional modifications. This framework utilizes the analysis of goals, objectives, methods, activities, performances and evaluation to develop successful policies. The article then introduces the conceptual framework which takes into consideration of assumptions, definitions, norms/values, and attitudes along with the institutional framework. The latter analyses political, social, and economic settings, institutional and legal settings, and stakeholders. This framework produces outcomes that are then assessed to understand whether or not they are a direct result of the policy itself or exogenous factors (Schouwstra & Ellman, 2006). Understanding this framework allows for the complete analysis of the various aspects of policy creation. Although it may be tedious, I believe this style of framework is necessary for future development and understanding of necessary processes. It takes into consideration all of

Policy Final

the factors previously discussed such as political, social, and institutional environments and stakeholders. Further assessment of critical success factors found within the methods and instruments section can produce an understanding of when various factors should be implemented or not. In conclusion, by giving evaluation its proper place and importance in the policymaking cycle, the learning process will be continuous( Schouwstra & Ellman, 2006, p. 15). Through this discussion I have outlined parameters in which define policy and the importance of assessment and evaluation therein. Higher education policy is forever changing demanding constant growth and learning. If proper analysis of this learning process is not conducted then what is there to be gained and how can one assure productive growth? Analysis mathematically is understood as working backward from a problem until a solution is found. I see policy holding a similar truth to this in that simply producing a result is not enough. The various components of the development and results must be broken down in order to promote change and assure competency in future decision making. Policy plays such an important role in higher education that it demands significant attention and cannot be simply swayed solely by political and financial influence.

Policy Final

References
Assessment.(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assessment

Bastedo, M. N. (2007). Sociological frameworks for higher education policy research. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts (pp. 295-316). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Evaluation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evaluation Fidelity. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity Haddad, W. D., Demsky, T., & United Nations Educational, S. g. (1995). Education policy-planning process: an applied framework. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 51.

McLendon, M & Ness E. (2003). The politics of state higher education governance reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 66-88. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7804_05 Schouwstra, M., & Ellman, M. (2006). A new explanatory model for policy analysis and evaluation. Tinbergen Institute, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers: 06-063/2